Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Korean Middle School Students' Epistemic Ideas of Claim, Data, Evidence, and Argument When Evaluating and Critiquing Arguments

한국 중학생들의 주장, 자료, 근거와 과학 논의에 대한 인식론적 이해조사

  • 유선아 (캘리포니아 주립대학교)
  • Received : 2015.01.19
  • Accepted : 2015.03.24
  • Published : 2015.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

An enhanced understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge-what counts as a scientific argument and how scientists justify their claims with evidence-has been central in Korean science instruction. However, despite its importance, scholars are generally concerned about the difficulty of both addressing and improving students' epistemic understanding, especially for students of a young age. This study investigated Korean middle school students' epistemic ideas about claim, data, evidence, and argument when they engage in reading both text-based and data-inscription arguments. Compared to previous studies, Korean middle school students show a sophisticated understanding of the role of claim and evidence. Yet, these students think that there is only a single way of interpreting data. When comparing students' ideas from text-based and data-inscription arguments, the majority of Korean students barely perceive text description as evidence and recognize only measured data as evidence.

Keywords

References

  1. Archieve. (2012). Next generation science standards.
  2. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 403-428. doi: 10.1002/tea.20063
  3. Bricker, L.A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498. doi: 10.1002/sce.20278
  4. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). 'An experiment is when you try it and see if it works': A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110504
  5. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4
  6. Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
  7. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  8. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  9. Duschl, R.A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  10. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  11. Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2009). “Here the scientists explain what i said.” coordination practices elicited during the enactment of the results and discussion sections of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 349-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9114-9
  12. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Hand, B.M., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L.D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165
  14. Hand, B.M, Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10128
  15. Hand, B.M., Florence, M.K., & Yore, L.D. (2004b). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008
  16. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S.J., & Sullivan Palincsar, A. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455-505. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1304_1
  17. Hynd, C., Holschuh, J.P., & Hubbard, B.P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students' reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141-176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_2
  18. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 497-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00013-X
  19. Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science educaiton (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  20. Lee, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing disciplinary literacies and the adolescent struggling reader: Placing culture at the forefront. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference.
  21. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6
  22. McNeill, K.L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
  23. Moje, E.B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of research in education, 31(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046001
  24. Moje, E.B. (2010). Comprehending in the content areas: The challenges of comprehension, grades 7-12, and what to do about them. In K. G. D. Fisher (Ed.), A comprehensive look at reading comprehension, k-12 (pp. 46-72). New York: Guilford.
  25. Moje, E.B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L.M., Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4-12 (pp. 227-251). New York: Teachers College Press.
  26. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  27. Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., Patterson, A., & Szu, E. (2012). Introduction. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research: Springer.
  28. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., &Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595
  29. Pluta, W.J., Chinn, C.A., & Duncan, R.G. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486-511. doi: 10.1002/tea.20415
  30. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W.A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
  31. Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  32. Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  33. Sandoval, W.A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10081
  34. Shin, J., & Choi, A. (2014). Trends in research studies on scientific argument and writing in korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  35. Smith, C.L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M.G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition & Instruction, 18(3), 349-422. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1803_3
  36. Smith, C.L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students' epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747-785. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20113
  37. Sutherland, LeeAnn M. (2008). Reading in science: Developing high-quality student text and supporting effective teacher enactment. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 162-180. https://doi.org/10.1086/590524
  38. Textual Tools Study Group. (2006a). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science & literacy in the k-8 classroom (pp. 261-285). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  39. Textual Tools Study Group. (2006b). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In M. K. K. W. R. Douglas (Ed.), Linking science & literacy in the k-8 classroom (pp. 261-285). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.